AfterDawn: Tech news

Senators push resolution opposing FCC net neutrality rules

Written by Rich Fiscus (Google+) @ 08 Nov 2011 5:29 User comments (11)

Senators push resolution opposing FCC net neutrality rules The US Senate may be voting to overturn the Federal Communication Commission's net neutrality rules some time this week.
Last week a number of senators drafted a resolution formally disapproving of the rules, which were prompted by a federal court decision overturning a FCC ruling against Comcast over throttling P2P traffic. The court pointed out Comcast had violated no FCC rules.

Late last year, the FCC drafted net neutrality rules, but didn't add them to the Federal Register, a requirement before they can go into effect, until September of this year. They are scheduled to take effect this month.

The full Senate is expected to vote on the resolution this week, but would not have any authority unless the president signs off on it, which is highly unlikely. If the president didn't approve of the rules, they wouldn't have been drafted in the first place.

In September, after the rules were officially published, one of the bill's sponsors, released a statement saying:

Companies and industries that use broadband communications have flourished over the last decade without government intervention, yet the FCC has chosen to ?fix' a problem that does not exist. Rather than imposing new, unnecessary regulations on one of the few thriving sectors of our economy, government should get out of the way, and allow new jobs and investment in broadband technologies.

Previous Next  

11 user comments

18.11.2011 15:44

I'm not entirely sure what to make of this. I think it warrants following to see how it pans out.

I would be interested to see how this bill interacts with the e-parasite bit I was reading about previously.

If both pieces of legislation were to come into play, It would create an environment that has not previously existed...the implications of which are a bit frightening.

28.11.2011 23:53
llongtheD
Inactive

Originally posted by CarpeSol:
I'm not entirely sure what to make of this. I think it warrants following to see how it pans out.

I would be interested to see how this bill interacts with the e-parasite bit I was reading about previously.

If both pieces of legislation were to come into play, It would create an environment that has not previously existed...the implications of which are a bit frightening.
It just means more government control of the internet. So long freedom, at least on the internet.

If your fish seems sick, put it back in the water.

39.11.2011 5:32

The ISP should be just that a provider, not a roadblock to free communication, not a traffic cop...and what about the absured claims of connect speed made by ISPs?

Can you imagine if the telephone was metered if you talked too long? Electrons have the velocity of light as a speed limit, why do ISP wish to slow that down?

49.11.2011 5:49

Originally posted by dp70:
The ISP should be just that a provider, not a roadblock to free communication, not a traffic cop...and what about the absured claims of connect speed made by ISPs?

Can you imagine if the telephone was metered if you talked too long? Electrons have the velocity of light as a speed limit, why do ISP wish to slow that down?
Because bandwidth costs a tiny amount of money...selling $1 worth of bandwidth and $5 worth of service for $50 a month makes a lot of money...but selling $0.50 worth of bandwidth for the same price makes slightly more money.

This is a lot different than all the other stuff being put forward...while ACTA and E-PARASITE and other such rules are designed to prevent innovation and the free exchange of information, the recent court ruling is designed to defend false advertising. Comcast doesn't sell internet by saying, "30MB download speeds, except for P2P"...they say, "30MB Download Speeds"...in reality, the download speeds are usually under 10mb (that is MB in the ads and mb in reality, so actual speeds are 1/24 of advertised speeds)...and as if that were not bad enough, they drop the speeds for certain things even farther...and it seems that the courts approve officially of all of this.

ACTA is totally different; it is designed to prevent anyone who isn't a multi-billion dollar company from releasing anything, and that is all it does.

And E-PARASITE is intended to prevent piracy, but in reality, it will force the creation (or rather, the expansion) of a very strong sub-net that is completely free of regulation, where child pornography will be free to flow right along side that birthday video that happens to have 2 seconds of some movie playing in the background at one point.

The only place where they really get together is that if ISPs can block (or slow to a crawl) certain types of communication, they can block these sub-nets, making the internet useless in the process. However, this wouldn't be very smart because if the internet is useless, why pay for it?


59.11.2011 8:03

The internet as one great big shopping mall in your home.
Complete with a rolling tabloid style 'news' (ie comment) feature.
As controlled, conventional & pro the existing western corporate establishment as it can get.

That's the limit & ideal these fools have in mind.

69.11.2011 17:00
llongtheD
Inactive

Originally posted by Interestx:
The internet as one great big shopping mall in your home.
Complete with a rolling tabloid style 'news' (ie comment) feature.
As controlled, conventional & pro the existing western corporate establishment as it can get.

That's the limit & ideal these fools have in mind.
Isn't that already here?

710.11.2011 3:28

Originally posted by KillerBug:
Originally posted by dp70:
The ISP should be just that a provider, not a roadblock to free communication, not a traffic cop...and what about the absured claims of connect speed made by ISPs?

Can you imagine if the telephone was metered if you talked too long? Electrons have the velocity of light as a speed limit, why do ISP wish to slow that down?
Because bandwidth costs a tiny amount of money...selling $1 worth of bandwidth and $5 worth of service for $50 a month makes a lot of money...but selling $0.50 worth of bandwidth for the same price makes slightly more money.

This is a lot different than all the other stuff being put forward...while ACTA and E-PARASITE and other such rules are designed to prevent innovation and the free exchange of information, the recent court ruling is designed to defend false advertising. Comcast doesn't sell internet by saying, "30MB download speeds, except for P2P"...they say, "30MB Download Speeds"...in reality, the download speeds are usually under 10mb (that is MB in the ads and mb in reality, so actual speeds are 1/24 of advertised speeds)...and as if that were not bad enough, they drop the speeds for certain things even farther...and it seems that the courts approve officially of all of this.

ACTA is totally different; it is designed to prevent anyone who isn't a multi-billion dollar company from releasing anything, and that is all it does.

And E-PARASITE is intended to prevent piracy, but in reality, it will force the creation (or rather, the expansion) of a very strong sub-net that is completely free of regulation, where child pornography will be free to flow right along side that birthday video that happens to have 2 seconds of some movie playing in the background at one point.

The only place where they really get together is that if ISPs can block (or slow to a crawl) certain types of communication, they can block these sub-nets, making the internet useless in the process. However, this wouldn't be very smart because if the internet is useless, why pay for it?
By referencing that particular piece of legislation, I wasn't trying to imply they were similar. I was simply remarking on the possible circumstances if both were implemented at the same time. The scope of this potential dynamic extends beyond more control on the government's part of the internet.

810.11.2011 9:36

Originally posted by llongtheD:

Isn't that already here?
The difference being that whilst that is, as you say, 'here already'it is not the only thing the net offers.


913.11.2011 18:53

Quote:
It just means more government control of the internet. So long freedom, at least on the internet.
quote]FIFY
This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 13 Nov 2011 @ 18:54

1014.11.2011 22:43
llongtheD
Inactive

Originally posted by kapkirk:
Quote:
It just means more government control of the internet. So long freedom, at least on the internet.
quote]FIFY
I'm not sure what you fixed for me, other than putting some words in red. Or was that it?

If your fish seems sick, put it back in the water.

1114.11.2011 23:25
llongtheD
Inactive

Originally posted by Interestx:
Originally posted by llongtheD:

Isn't that already here?
The difference being that whilst that is, as you say, 'here already'it is not the only thing the net offers.


Yes your right, but the first time or average internet user is guided toward exactly that.

If your fish seems sick, put it back in the water.

Comments have been disabled for this article.

News archive